成唯識論述記 1.433

1.433

述曰：又三是別，各別體故；大等是總，是一法故，非謂三成其大，遂異。此即乘前一相為難。三事和合，成一大等，大等名總，雖總、別不同，而性定是一；如金轉為環，非離環外別有金故。以本三事，從大等難。量云：汝許別三事，應是一非三；因云：性即總故；如總大等。以總大等從三難云：大等總法，應是三非一；因云：體即別三故；如三別性。此中論文更互相非，謂總非一，別非是三。彼若轉計言：誰言所成大等諸法各是一耶？三合成故，非是一相。其中諸相，實各各別，合故似一。

The Commentary states: Furthermore, the three are particular because their essences are distinct; mahat and so forth are general because each is a single principle—it is not that the three establishing mahat causes them to be different. This pursues the previous objection regarding the single characteristic. The three entities combine to establish a single mahat; mahat is termed general, and although general and particular differ, their nature is definitely one; just as when gold transforms into a ring, there is no gold apart from the ring. Taking the original three entities, one refutes them based on mahat. The syllogism is: The distinct three entities you accept should be one and not three; the reason is: because their nature is identical to the general; like the general mahat and so forth. Taking the general mahat and so forth, one refutes them based on the three: The general principles such as mahat should be three and not one; the reason is: because their essence is identical to the particular three; like the three distinct natures. The text here mutually negates them, meaning the general is not one, and the particulars are not three. If they shift their position, saying: "Who said that the produced mahat and other principles are each one? Being composed of three, they are not of a single characteristic. Among them, the various characteristics are truly distinct, but because of combination they appear as one."